Stephen Hawking dead at 76

He does something I consider evil, or he does something he considers evil?

 

You.

 

Well like I said at the end of that answer, there is no sign in this world of anything akin to divine judgement only the judgement of us mortals of which I touched upon earlier.

Without mental Illness in the equation then most won't even feel guilty on there death bed as they likely either feel justified in there actions or didn't believe they did anything wrong, as such they don't really factor in to the question asked.

It's a nice thought all "bad" people get punished and in reality many eventually suffer for there misdeeds, but something that has no evidence in reality to substantiate any claim of the sort.

 

Yes or No

 

I said a pretty clear no twice. The rest was explanation for my point of view, but as I said I'm not a prophet I can only state what is evident, whether or not there is an after life I claim no knowledge, only that there is no evidence to support any such claim, and quite a bit of evidence against religion itself to support reason to not take the claim at face value if nothing else.

 

Why not?

 

I'll ask you to clarify your question as I don't want to assume your intent.

And please read my prior answers before clarifying

 

I read them and you didn't answer the question: Why not?

What kind of force is preventing him to live in peace? The force of gravity?

 

Sorry just realized you were asking me personally whether I could live with doing something evil lol.

No because as explained I have standard social morals, which are a basic evolutionary trait. I could live a perfectly happy fine and dandy day if I did something you considered evil though so long as I didn't think it was evil...i'm doing that right now by disagreeing many peoples religion. That's how social morals work really at a basic level. Can't please everyone.

Wow I didn't even think you meant that as a personnal question to me, not sure what the point of that would be, so didn't even consider it

 

wtf. Given there is no evidence so we should conclude WE DONT KNOW what happens.

Well like i think calisk tried to say evil is subjective so this question doesnt make sense. And even if the answer is no it's not because there is a god, it's because we can have empathy.

this quote is not from me. i read it somewhere and i dont remember where but i saved it because i liked it so much:

" I'm agnostic, my worldview is primarily science-based but I am aware of the fact that the human brain is extremely limited and cannot possibly understand or even perceive everything. That's why I take into account that the possibility of higher powers may exist. But I can neither prove their existence nor disprove it, so I stay away from forming any kind of belief or even opinion about it in order to stay objective."

 

While I agree that I don't know and I conclude as such that we are all ignorant of any after life, I'm not agnostic such as yourself as I simply believe the likeliness of all religions being made up are vastly more likely then any of them being true, and nothing in the natural world supports the concept of an after life unless ghost sightings turn out to be real.

Lacking any evidence to support an after life my conclusion is It's unlikely their is one but I have an open mind about it at least to hearing opposing view points, I don't deny the possibility just the likeliness of it is excessively limited.

So limited in fact that I wouldn't consider thinking about it unless new facts are introduced.

The concept of an after life has existed as long as people understood they'd die, It's obvious they would make stories up to comfort fear of a scary unknown concept, that is quite frankly a very human thing to do, and the one thing I trust is humans to be humans. The fact that their are so many after life stories is evident of that much at least.

 

That's not the name of a force. But you confirmed there is an external force acting on human beings and you don't know what it is. Well, 31% of people in this world (who are christian) and another 53% from other religious have a name for the source of that force.

Let me finish by saying no one should be scared of God. When I say we should fear him, it means we recognize his existance as the ruler of humanity; the source of this external force we are talking about, which help us mantain life.

 

Social science easily explains morality, but to your point if it was an outside force then it would be uniform...hell it would have some semblance of uniformity across the planet both in modern day all the way back to time eternal.

Nothing about it is uniform but there is a direct correlation and consistency with the social norms of where the people grow up, the commonly practiced religions their parents practice, the way they grow up, their economic factors, etc basically any social factor in society, that will assist in their integration with their peers has an effect on their morality.

Morality is a survival trait, one that served us greatly in tribal times when to be excluded from the group would often result in your death.

We still have that today and It helps greatly in allowing humans to interact as we do and not descend into chaos.

From a philosophical approach to the problem let's take God's biggest moral nono "though shall not kill."

Pretty consistent across all religions, but pick any point in history any society in the world and you will find that It's acceptable in that society to kill someone, enemies of the country, prisoners, etc.

You'd think he'd have a better track record than that with one of his biggest sins if he really is our moral guide

Also for what It's worth religion does effect morality as It's a real thing that directly enforces rules on individuals, but religion doesn't require a God to do this, indoctrination and fear/faith is all That's required.

 

That's actually not the 6th commandment. In 1600, the english language was in its infancy and the word "murder" didn't exist. So King James translated the Hebrew word "Ratsach" (which means "murder") into "kill" ("kill" in hebrew is "Harag").

The correct translation is "You shall do no murder". You can kill ants, and you can also kill in self-defence. To commit the sin, it requires intent. In wikipedia you can see the contradiction because King james version is used: "You shall not kill, but you can kill in self-defence. trololol".

King James sucks and you should avoid his translations at all costs. The reason why is so confusing for english language is because it has 59 translations (other languages only have 2-3 translations in average), some are ultra wrong, and some contain fabrications such as the scofield bible.
The most accurate translation is the NIV imo. (commandments are in Exodus 20)

 

regret is a human emotion that likely evolved to imagine a better outcome to scenarios encountered in the past so that a social animal with an advanced brain can learn from past mistakes. wether one can live with oneself after comitting an act that I would describe as the complete opposite of altruistic depends on how it justifies it. intelligent creatures seem to have a huge capacity for mental gymnastics as can be seen in how the religious try to justify their ancient morality in a modern setting. and their belief in gods in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence. the prolem in @ProR2D2 's line of questions is that he boils a complex psychological issue heavily dependent on the circumstance down to a yes or no question. this sort of black and white morality is unrealistic in the real world. If one steals to survive he will justify it because he did not deserve to starve, if a person steals a precious heirloom and did not know the significance of the object untill after the fact he might seek to redeem himself by returning the object to the distressed owner. if one is religious and rapes a child he might ask god to fergive his sins and here is the problem. in the view of many christians the child rapist is granted entry to heaven while often an atheist that has lead an objectively better life doing no harm does not.

a prime example here of self deception and justification as you're just justifying murder with asterisks, the fact that the US goverment kills 90 people ( including kids) in drone strikes to try and kill 1 suspected terrorist is fine, afterall there was no INTENT to kill those 90, they just were at the explosion while the target often is not.

 

mine is that religion does not stand up.

can't win anyway or change their minds ( usually, change mostly comes from within) because religion isn't playing with a full deck of cards if you know what I mean.

 

Just because unintentional killing isn't forbidden in the Ten Commandments, doesn't mean it isn't a sin. It just means it isn't a capital sin. The fact of the matter is "Ratsach" is the word that appears in the 6th commandment, and almost definitely means "murder".

I'm getting tired of refuting your falsehoods and deceptions("bullshits"), so no more replies to you.

 

Irrelevant. besides that that wasn't even the main point of my post ( you bullshitter trying to deceive people you)
the fact that it is written in a storybook doesn't make it true.
here are some things that are equally as viable as your book.



"Vampires are way better than werewolves!" - Harley Quinn, Gotham city sirens volume 1
Cn I get an AMEN ?to that?

 

I can see the contradiction.yes.

excuse me bu you are the one posting falsehoods and deception. as I quite clearly illustrate by the above quotes.

 

Just because I happen to be moderately interested in this game even though I don't play much anymore and am searching the forums randomly, happened to come across this thread, and happen to be personally interested in philosophy, formal (syllogistic) logic and argumentation, I've figured I'd give my two cents.

I have repeatedly read posts in this thread that demand or insist that there be proof for a claim of which "proof" is supposedly a necessary condition (in order to believe that the claim is true, or at the very least, plausible and probable). First of all, the term "proof" needs to be defined; I am going to assume that the word "proof" is being used in the strongest sense. As in, "certainty." And if it truly is the case that a necessary condition for believing that something is true is that the claim in question must be proven with "proof" (or certainty), then there are already logical problems with that, not emotional or personal ones. Firstly, if we should only believe that things are true if we can prove them, then I must be able to prove that very statement, or else, according to its own rules, I should not (or cannot) believe that it is true. But it's impossible to prove the statement, "We should only believe that things are true if we can prove them." Therefore, it is very obvious that the statement is self-defeating (logically contradictory) and therefore not true. In addition, just look at real-world examples. Did you prove your car would run properly before you got in it? Did you prove you wouldn't get into an accident? No, but you drove anyway. And would you say that humans are just inevitably irrational because they are forced to make decisions without having all of the data? No. We make decisions based on the available data, and that does not make us inherently irrational. Can you blame a newborn puppy, or even a newborn baby, for pissing on the floor? It hasn't learned any better yet. Knowing all of this, the only actual logical conclusion we can make is that, clearly, not only is it okay, but it is necessary that we make decisions and do things without being able to prove that they are true. It's literally impossible not to do this. You choose every day to either keep living or to kill yourself, without being absolutely certain which one you should be doing.

The fact of the matter is that there are an infinite number of things that we believe in without being able to prove them with absolute certainty. The famous philosopher Descartes argued that there is only one thing that we can know with certainty; that we are "thinking beings" (I think, therefore I am). Atheism and theism both fall into the category of "things that we believe without certainty." Why should it be assumed that atheists know anything more than theists? According to Socrates, they both don't know anything; Socrates was considered the wisest man in all of Athens because he was the only one who could admit that really, he "knew nothing," but everyone else knew nothing, too.

Which brings me to the point of what is called the "problem of induction" in philosophy. It's very easy to prove that things are false compared to being able to prove that things are true. For example, if, for the next 99 billion years, the earth still revolves around the sun, this still wouldn't prove that "the earth will revolve around the sun forever" (or as long as they both exist). And yet, tomorrow, I believe that the earth will still revolve around the sun because of the available evidence, even though it cannot be proven that this will occur. However, let's say the sun revolves around the earth tomorrow. This would prove the statement, "the earth will revolve around the sun forever" false.

Furthermore, if I made the claim, "There's a unicorn that farts rainbows in my backyard and everyone can see it if you just go there," I can prove it false because all you have to do is find one person who goes there and can't see it and the whole argument crumbles.

The interesting thing about the debate on the existence of God is that there is no such way to "prove" that atheism or theism are false as I did with the example above, so the problem of induction still exists for both sides. However, in the same way I believe the earth will revolve around the sun tomorrow due to the available evidence, I also believe that based on the available evidence that the truth of one of the sides should be clear over the other; it would actually be a miraculous phenomenon if the decision was, in truth, 100% arbitrary. With that being said, I'd like to leave it up to anyone who reads this to guess which side I think is more plausible. I'd be happy to respond and share thoughts with anyone who takes what I have said seriously. Even better, someone who wishes to critique my assertions.